Well duh, everybody knows that hair stylists (and taxi drivers) are best versed and qualified in running governments, politics, etc.; not in technology (no wonder so many places are so frakked up, with the best potential leaders at such jobs...)
Ah, but that's mostly just not being very imaginative;p
The thing with manuals is that the only "perishable" stuff (apart from paper...) is a thin cloth soaked in ink, a thing which you can improvise relatively easy; or regenerate the old ribbon (yes, the particular ink and overall results might be substandard, it all might be a bit messy or dry too easily... still should be fine, every few days; I bet the recipes for "originals" are also fairly straightforward and easy to find, so if you prepare yourself you'll be good even in a nuclear winter and so on;p )
Heck, my Kolibri already has "wrong" ribbon (two colour one, with the typewriter not having the mechanism to lift ribbon and use 2nd colour)...it doesn't matter.
(Up to) 9.27, the last solid "classic release". 9.5 to early 10 were a bit of a disaster IMHO (probably because the sudden emergence of "js race" wrecked their internal plans & schedules). And there's 11 for quite some time already, again solid... and even treating the RAM nicer than the "disaster" ones, IMHO.
The third one around the Sol, I imagine, with 1+ billion PCs among its population. Perhaps just not looking at it through quite local, quite atypical experience (that, and how high-tech stuff in particular becomes more expensive, also in absolute amounts, the less prosperous a given place is)
If "mainstream" suddenly means "what's available to buy", not what's fairly typical among the 1+ billion PCs in usage... people doing work on them very much reasonably efficiently (another thing is how many use computer, any computer, only for very basic stuff)
Huh? Patched up here, the OS doesn't really need more than ~200 MiB for itself, and that (checking Process Explorer) includes occasions when it runs for a looong time (well, hibernations in-between), with quite a few heavy apps. And on a machine with 768 MiB, Opera still makes a huge difference.
The apps which care less about RAM themselves end up RAM-starved.
Enabling Opera Turbo (as long as corp policy, etc. allows such proxy) also makes a big difference, especially on lowest-end machines - because on them it's apparently not only about connection speed, also how much RAM is taken, say, by all the images (recompressed & much smaller with Turbo, it adds up I guess; then you can quickly toggle images on/off in Opera)...or whatever it is that causes noticeably lower memory usage with Turbo on. Which also places "press here" place-holder where plugin contents are, so there's no need to disable them manually.
This adblock list might also be handy. Yes, Opera has nicely packaged "extensions" now... but using the built-in adblocker (which was there for a long time, only needed to be provided with a list) might end up lighter. It works fine, and if something slips in - there's also content blocker under RMB menu.
Its suitability for older machines is probably one of the reasons for Opera usage share among CIS web population - where people are at the same time quite connected and on slow machines & connections (in the family home of my buddy, the computer is still some early Netburst Celeron with 256 MiB, on dial-up; by no means unique). By far #1 browser in Belarus with half the market, large share in Ukraine and Russia (those two seem to tend towards roughly equal usage shares of all major browsers, an ideal situation IMHO; assures standard websites, not "best viewed in IE and FF" we had for some time, which is only barely better from "best in IE")
"Classic" 9.27 release is even fine on a dual PII 266 that I keep around and boot up sometimes. It actually appears to work better recently (apart from js overload nowadays, better to turn it off) - I guess thanks to websites dropping IE6 & caring more about web standards, which is another focus of Opera for a long time.
At 5% efficiency (or so). And with Watt not being very "large" unit - that 275 W is roughly 0.37 HP. Might be enough for a kick scooter. And you have one heck of a microwave oven (early "industrial" one?)
BTW, interstellar "cold" is not an issue; much less than efficient dumping of waste heat when there's no convection, just radiative heat transfer.
The "easiest and safest" would be probably via one of La Fonera models from Fon. Not "best" - but would work almost after plugging it in, it's focused on sharing, has private and public network (with speed limits possible for the latter), requires logging in (so one should be safe / logs).
Just not so straightforward to "users" (the access is free only if they also have La Fonera at their place)
With millions of deaths in the process, and numerous times on the brink of very hot war, yay (at least initially hot, because afterwards we'd possibly get nuclear winter)
But just wait for swarms of easily mass-produced small autonomous vehicles (which would be my guess for the next nightmare in the style of Western Front of WW1, with tactics and mentality of the past and tech of the "future"; maybe throw in a bit of Skynet;) )
On one hand I'd say: furthermore, we don't need the return of myths like "bomber gap", "missile gap" or "mineshaft gap"; or the literary fiction of Team B (but check the names on this one). But on the other... masses of people are still very good with self-terrorising. Which still assures spending, lots of it (and hence the problems with solvency)
In my times, the cats didn't domesticate humans yet - so we had to scavenge whiskers in the dens/etc. of the beats, with great risk to life... and many sacrifices.
PS. And, similar to actual rigorous studies of spaceplanes, studies of very high speed bombers gave results of dubious advantage. Certainly when you include the modern doctrines of bomber being, in most demanding scenarios, mostly a carrier of long-range missiles.
Ahh, but that's in disagreement with documented chronology. Everybody at first expected "aerodynamic" or "spaceplane-ish" shapes from reentry vehicles, and worked towards it hard. They proved pretty much unworkable. Blunt shape entry capsule was a relatively late innovation, an improvement; and a bit of a surprise. STS was more of "going back", to early dreams. There nothing wrong with capsules; bringing stuff down is the least of worries, in a way.
Seems like airframe might be quite workable as just payload of "dumb rocket" [1]... but when it comes to X-33, it was again the same story - way over-budget, way late, and with dubious practicality. Physics, rocket equation, are a bitch. [2]
And with "autonomous" you missed the point - it's (quite demonstrably) easier and less expensive to just launch what would be in the poyload bay of the spaceplane, but with small (semi mass produced) orbital tug attached. On a (semi mass produced) launcher.
1. Heck, even when the Soviet engineers (wanting to do the Spiral) were forced by ignorant generals to do a direct counterpart of STS to balance (non-existent) "strategic advantage", they had chosen the "payload" approach; too bad it bled them dry, we'd have at least Zarya "super Soyuz"
2. Maybe some things we tried are just a tad beyond sane...
Hm, though those were mostly dash speeds... I wouldn't be too surprised if many (century series in particular) were capable of them largely because the airframe had to cope with the heating only for few to dozen minutes. And at least B-1B simply sacrificed its variable intakes (and hence speed) for greater stealth; more balanced, supposedly (otoh Tu-160 or -22M3 is still fast). Not only the average could've perhaps went up, some of the recent and upcoming long range missiles are rather speedy.
Probably complex interactions, generally. Yes, maybe some lowering (maybe just to actually sane levels? Can't beat routine service life of currently flying airframes) - but, looking at other area: in my country there are currently no trains as fast as pre-ww2 steam engines (one in particular, on one high speed line). But OTOH rail accidents, derailments (particularly common with the mentioned high speed steam engine) are much rarer.
Well, the fastest submarines "ever" are also nearing half century old. With other things being ultimately more important...
But don't equate "modern" with "nuclear"; a lot (most?) of the former are not the latter. Basically just one submarine force focused exclusively on blue water nuclear subs. But numerous types of subs meant for coastal defences, etc. are also modern (if with air independent propulsion of some kind, that's not really "different in kind from any WWII power source", since such systems had first serious tests back then), and even the quietest (hm, now I wonder if how much somebody focuses on almost purely defensive subs, and how some ignore them, is indicative of something;) )
Unless we somehow count the relatively recent development of Skval torpedo(?..), but this one probably also sets pretty much the upper limit.
I'm pretty certain it would be trivial to find a manual one close to her destination; probably at a notably lower price, too. Manuals basically seemed to be the norm, even in not particularly impoverished places (Central Europe in my case), virtually till the very "end" of typewriter ("classic" electric ones being a rarity, and as for more modern ones... so late, so few, I barely perceive them as typewriters).
When their time had finally come a decade+ ago, the thing I randomly stumbled upon and saved from the scrapyard was a 50+ year old (now, and it will probably outlive me) Kolibri (well, not quite in those colours and languages); even, supposedly, one of the smallest and lightest "ever"...
I would see the anniversary of STS launch as something... sad. Set us back probably at least a decade. With automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s, it was obsolete before it seriously got on drawing boards (vs. just attaching some small tug to your cargo and not wasting most of launch mass for airframe)
"German scientists" was much less true for the Soviets, actually; they got mostly just technicians, and send them back to Germany long before sputnik.
Their record afterwards suggests they have a few tricks of their own in this field, for some reason (check also the engine of Atlas V, and whole first stage (tankage & engine) of Taurus 2)
R-7 was the first operational ICBM... (not like it was practical in that role of course, not like the "missile gap" wasn't a myth; at least it turned out to be a fabulous launcher)
And they had practical ones quite soon afterwards. Probably deciding to jump on the next obvious stage, not having huge bomber force ("bomber gap" also being a myth...)
Though such fairly precise Earth-bound timekeeping seems fairly strange for monkeyman... they went strangely overboard with watching the cycles. They even know exactly the day of their birthdays now. And intoxicate themselves on anniversary. Strange.
Slashdot Mirror
Well duh, everybody knows that hair stylists (and taxi drivers) are best versed and qualified in running governments, politics, etc.; not in technology (no wonder so many places are so frakked up, with the best potential leaders at such jobs...)
Ah, but that's mostly just not being very imaginative ;p
;p )
The thing with manuals is that the only "perishable" stuff (apart from paper...) is a thin cloth soaked in ink, a thing which you can improvise relatively easy; or regenerate the old ribbon (yes, the particular ink and overall results might be substandard, it all might be a bit messy or dry too easily... still should be fine, every few days; I bet the recipes for "originals" are also fairly straightforward and easy to find, so if you prepare yourself you'll be good even in a nuclear winter and so on
Heck, my Kolibri already has "wrong" ribbon (two colour one, with the typewriter not having the mechanism to lift ribbon and use 2nd colour)...it doesn't matter.
(Up to) 9.27, the last solid "classic release". 9.5 to early 10 were a bit of a disaster IMHO (probably because the sudden emergence of "js race" wrecked their internal plans & schedules). And there's 11 for quite some time already, again solid... and even treating the RAM nicer than the "disaster" ones, IMHO.
I wish modern software weren't as bloated as it is, but it is what it is.
Well, this whole topic is about asking which modern software is not so bloated. And getting some good suggestions.
The third one around the Sol, I imagine, with 1+ billion PCs among its population. Perhaps just not looking at it through quite local, quite atypical experience (that, and how high-tech stuff in particular becomes more expensive, also in absolute amounts, the less prosperous a given place is)
If "mainstream" suddenly means "what's available to buy", not what's fairly typical among the 1+ billion PCs in usage... people doing work on them very much reasonably efficiently (another thing is how many use computer, any computer, only for very basic stuff)
Huh? Patched up here, the OS doesn't really need more than ~200 MiB for itself, and that (checking Process Explorer) includes occasions when it runs for a looong time (well, hibernations in-between), with quite a few heavy apps. And on a machine with 768 MiB, Opera still makes a huge difference.
The apps which care less about RAM themselves end up RAM-starved.
Enabling Opera Turbo (as long as corp policy, etc. allows such proxy) also makes a big difference, especially on lowest-end machines - because on them it's apparently not only about connection speed, also how much RAM is taken, say, by all the images (recompressed & much smaller with Turbo, it adds up I guess; then you can quickly toggle images on/off in Opera) ...or whatever it is that causes noticeably lower memory usage with Turbo on. Which also places "press here" place-holder where plugin contents are, so there's no need to disable them manually.
This adblock list might also be handy. Yes, Opera has nicely packaged "extensions" now... but using the built-in adblocker (which was there for a long time, only needed to be provided with a list) might end up lighter. It works fine, and if something slips in - there's also content blocker under RMB menu.
Its suitability for older machines is probably one of the reasons for Opera usage share among CIS web population - where people are at the same time quite connected and on slow machines & connections (in the family home of my buddy, the computer is still some early Netburst Celeron with 256 MiB, on dial-up; by no means unique). By far #1 browser in Belarus with half the market, large share in Ukraine and Russia (those two seem to tend towards roughly equal usage shares of all major browsers, an ideal situation IMHO; assures standard websites, not "best viewed in IE and FF" we had for some time, which is only barely better from "best in IE")
"Classic" 9.27 release is even fine on a dual PII 266 that I keep around and boot up sometimes. It actually appears to work better recently (apart from js overload nowadays, better to turn it off) - I guess thanks to websites dropping IE6 & caring more about web standards, which is another focus of Opera for a long time.
Opera is also available on the Mac, you know... ;p
And few lines from "Everybody's Free (To Wear Sunscreen)" by Baz Luhrmann
At 5% efficiency (or so). And with Watt not being very "large" unit - that 275 W is roughly 0.37 HP. Might be enough for a kick scooter. And you have one heck of a microwave oven (early "industrial" one?)
BTW, interstellar "cold" is not an issue; much less than efficient dumping of waste heat when there's no convection, just radiative heat transfer.
The "easiest and safest" would be probably via one of La Fonera models from Fon. Not "best" - but would work almost after plugging it in, it's focused on sharing, has private and public network (with speed limits possible for the latter), requires logging in (so one should be safe / logs).
Just not so straightforward to "users" (the access is free only if they also have La Fonera at their place)
With millions of deaths in the process, and numerous times on the brink of very hot war, yay (at least initially hot, because afterwards we'd possibly get nuclear winter)
;) )
But just wait for swarms of easily mass-produced small autonomous vehicles (which would be my guess for the next nightmare in the style of Western Front of WW1, with tactics and mentality of the past and tech of the "future"; maybe throw in a bit of Skynet
On one hand I'd say: furthermore, we don't need the return of myths like "bomber gap", "missile gap" or "mineshaft gap"; or the literary fiction of Team B (but check the names on this one). But on the other... masses of people are still very good with self-terrorising. Which still assures spending, lots of it (and hence the problems with solvency)
In my times, the cats didn't domesticate humans yet - so we had to scavenge whiskers in the dens/etc. of the beats, with great risk to life... and many sacrifices.
PS. And, similar to actual rigorous studies of spaceplanes, studies of very high speed bombers gave results of dubious advantage. Certainly when you include the modern doctrines of bomber being, in most demanding scenarios, mostly a carrier of long-range missiles.
Ahh, but that's in disagreement with documented chronology. Everybody at first expected "aerodynamic" or "spaceplane-ish" shapes from reentry vehicles, and worked towards it hard. They proved pretty much unworkable. Blunt shape entry capsule was a relatively late innovation, an improvement; and a bit of a surprise. STS was more of "going back", to early dreams. There nothing wrong with capsules; bringing stuff down is the least of worries, in a way.
Seems like airframe might be quite workable as just payload of "dumb rocket" [1]... but when it comes to X-33, it was again the same story - way over-budget, way late, and with dubious practicality. Physics, rocket equation, are a bitch. [2]
And with "autonomous" you missed the point - it's (quite demonstrably) easier and less expensive to just launch what would be in the poyload bay of the spaceplane, but with small (semi mass produced) orbital tug attached. On a (semi mass produced) launcher.
1. Heck, even when the Soviet engineers (wanting to do the Spiral) were forced by ignorant generals to do a direct counterpart of STS to balance (non-existent) "strategic advantage", they had chosen the "payload" approach; too bad it bled them dry, we'd have at least Zarya "super Soyuz"
2. Maybe some things we tried are just a tad beyond sane...
Hm, though those were mostly dash speeds... I wouldn't be too surprised if many (century series in particular) were capable of them largely because the airframe had to cope with the heating only for few to dozen minutes. And at least B-1B simply sacrificed its variable intakes (and hence speed) for greater stealth; more balanced, supposedly (otoh Tu-160 or -22M3 is still fast). Not only the average could've perhaps went up, some of the recent and upcoming long range missiles are rather speedy.
Probably complex interactions, generally. Yes, maybe some lowering (maybe just to actually sane levels? Can't beat routine service life of currently flying airframes) - but, looking at other area: in my country there are currently no trains as fast as pre-ww2 steam engines (one in particular, on one high speed line). But OTOH rail accidents, derailments (particularly common with the mentioned high speed steam engine) are much rarer.
Well, the fastest submarines "ever" are also nearing half century old. With other things being ultimately more important...
;) )
But don't equate "modern" with "nuclear"; a lot (most?) of the former are not the latter. Basically just one submarine force focused exclusively on blue water nuclear subs. But numerous types of subs meant for coastal defences, etc. are also modern (if with air independent propulsion of some kind, that's not really "different in kind from any WWII power source", since such systems had first serious tests back then), and even the quietest (hm, now I wonder if how much somebody focuses on almost purely defensive subs, and how some ignore them, is indicative of something
Unless we somehow count the relatively recent development of Skval torpedo(?..), but this one probably also sets pretty much the upper limit.
I'm pretty certain it would be trivial to find a manual one close to her destination; probably at a notably lower price, too. Manuals basically seemed to be the norm, even in not particularly impoverished places (Central Europe in my case), virtually till the very "end" of typewriter ("classic" electric ones being a rarity, and as for more modern ones... so late, so few, I barely perceive them as typewriters).
When their time had finally come a decade+ ago, the thing I randomly stumbled upon and saved from the scrapyard was a 50+ year old (now, and it will probably outlive me) Kolibri (well, not quite in those colours and languages); even, supposedly, one of the smallest and lightest "ever"...
Figure out a way of forcing them to communicate in epic verse, plus this, ...and we're in business?
I would see the anniversary of STS launch as something... sad. Set us back probably at least a decade. With automatic rendezvous & docking done in the 60s, it was obsolete before it seriously got on drawing boards (vs. just attaching some small tug to your cargo and not wasting most of launch mass for airframe)
"German scientists" was much less true for the Soviets, actually; they got mostly just technicians, and send them back to Germany long before sputnik.
Their record afterwards suggests they have a few tricks of their own in this field, for some reason (check also the engine of Atlas V, and whole first stage (tankage & engine) of Taurus 2)
R-7 was the first operational ICBM... (not like it was practical in that role of course, not like the "missile gap" wasn't a myth; at least it turned out to be a fabulous launcher)
And they had practical ones quite soon afterwards. Probably deciding to jump on the next obvious stage, not having huge bomber force ("bomber gap" also being a myth...)
Though such fairly precise Earth-bound timekeeping seems fairly strange for monkeyman... they went strangely overboard with watching the cycles. They even know exactly the day of their birthdays now. And intoxicate themselves on anniversary. Strange.